One thing to keep in mind is Ali wouldn't really need to move that far forward to catch Wladimir who only has a one inch reach advantage.

Moreover I'm not sure he's fluent enough to compete with Ali once he gets going. If you look at the Wladimir of the Haye fight, he wasn't the same fighter when he was faced with a little movement and he didn't throw the jab with the same conviction (early on anyway). This wouldn't be wise against Ali, Wladimir would need to accept he is going to get hit and pump his educated jab in Ali's direction, not necessarily hitting him all the time but just stopping him from getting into a groove, I think with enough confidence this is definitely possible and would make the fight a lot better.

I feel people are under-rating Wlad's defence here as well, his blocking and parrying is excellent and he rarely mistimes in that regard, as well as just putting his arms out and moving back out of range as you pepper his arms, sometimes it looks clumsy and stupid but it's very effective.

I mean it's definitely an interesting fight, moreso than most would like to admit, but I feel Ali gets the decision.

Ali had superior footwork, speed and rhythm that puts welterweights to shame let alone the stationary heavyweights you get today, not to mention his combinations he could throw and the power...oh and his chin and the ability to out think his opponent in and outside the ring...

If the basis for your argument is that Ali would beat Wlad easily because:

*Wlad struggled or lost Vs (insert fighter here) but

*Ali did great vs (insert fighter here), therfore Ali TKO Wlad; then yes I will pick his resume apart for the purpose of destroying the argument that Ali has faced anyone who even remotely resembled Wlad.

There is a lot of Boxing Socialism going on when discussing past and present Era's. You've got redistribution of wealth in Socialist economics, and you've got redistribution of Greatness in Boxing. Anyone who defeated a Great fighter from the past is automatically considered Great himself. But if someone beats Wlad, completely the opposite. Redistributionism.

I.E. if someone beats up Ali or Joe Louis for example, they're being given credit as a Great Fighter. But if someone beats up Wlad, or gives him problems, it's the opposite. It's used to discredit Wlad because look - he is not so dominant anymore, this guy knocked him down 3 times (Peter) and that guy knocked him out. His chin sucks and his opponent sucked. Never mind that his opponent was a hard puncher and had a decent record on his own merit.

It's this automatic favoritism towards anything from days past. Even the bums from the 50's and 60's are somehow elevated to elite status (just because I guess they're tougher for fighting on black and white TV), whereas here a bum is a bum. "Those pu$$ies on HD tv, they're too soft."

I thought that the difference between the two would be how Ali and Wlad lost in their prime. Ali lost decisions where as Wlad lost by brutal ko's.

Come on man, didn't you see Haye slip Wlad's jabs with ease? Difference is Ali had great offense to compliment his defense.

That's how I look at it to. I imagine Ali in Haye's place, and you can't honestly tell me Ali would not have been capitalizing on the openings Haye had. The difference in who was winning the rounds in Wlad-Haye came down to two or three punches Wlad landed each round. Ali would land those punches, because he was just way, way, way better than Haye. I'm not a big fan of using comparisons this way, but it's one of those cases where it fits.